well if they put it to a vote, and a majority wants to take out leopold they can. the remaining 26 can buy him out a 2.8 mil and get a few players a piece for that. or you can have 10 rich teams buy him out at 7.5 a piece. You might say that's alot but thinking ahead, they'd be playing in a smaller league where salaries would naturally be lower, but just in case you could set a high cap at about 47 million though you probably wouldn't get near it.

0

^7^ is just defending his sport sheeps.. as Alcibiades the exiled Athenian rationalizes in his speech to the enemy Spartans, he wants to take revenge on Athens because he loves it and can't stand to see the state it's in now - Triumph

$42.5 million is fair enough, the players now have to know this is the highest the so-called 'hawks' among the owners are willing to go and there will NOT be a better deal next year. They got a removal of linkage, they got the cap to go up and that's all they're going to get, if the players can't live with an average salary of around $2 million per season per player on the 20-man roster when a cap will only affect the highest-paid players on a team to begin with then they deserve to have the owners break the union.

The Brookses of the world said the owners only wanted to hear about a $31 million cap, well that number got moved up $11.5 in the end AND there's 'no' tie to linkage. Now we'll see whether the players are willing to destroy the sport for a few extra bucks for its upper class that they'd never see anyway.

Edited by Hasan4978, 15 February 2005 - 07:56 PM.

0

"The Devils have high standards, that's the difference. We have a standard to live up to every year, and a couple of teams in our area don't have the standards we do." - Pat Burns

The New Jersey Devils win Stanley Cups everywhere:-NHL record for most road wins in the playoffs - 10-1 in '95 and 10-2 in '00-NHL record for most home wins in the playoffs - 12-1 in '03

7, you're forgetting that the PLAYERS wouldn't neccesarily want contraction either, that means the loss of jobs. Then again the players haven't cared less about its lower-middle class from the get-go so they might rationalize the loss of one team or two as the loss of 35 dissenters and the relocation of the rest of the players

0

"The Devils have high standards, that's the difference. We have a standard to live up to every year, and a couple of teams in our area don't have the standards we do." - Pat Burns

The New Jersey Devils win Stanley Cups everywhere:-NHL record for most road wins in the playoffs - 10-1 in '95 and 10-2 in '00-NHL record for most home wins in the playoffs - 12-1 in '03

I hate this deal. A $42M cap is meaningless when there are buckets of teams that couldn't dream of coming up with $42M/season.

The only way I would support anything over $35M is if there was a VERY strong luxery tax between $35M and $42M, with that money going to the lower revenue teams.

How is $42 million meaningless when the highest-spending teams spent around $80 million last year? It's a tremendous step toward leveling the field and depressing the market. If teams can't survive with a $42 million cap then they SHOULD be contracted. Or the owners should come up with more of a revenue-sharing plan than they've ever come up with.

0

"The Devils have high standards, that's the difference. We have a standard to live up to every year, and a couple of teams in our area don't have the standards we do." - Pat Burns

The New Jersey Devils win Stanley Cups everywhere:-NHL record for most road wins in the playoffs - 10-1 in '95 and 10-2 in '00-NHL record for most home wins in the playoffs - 12-1 in '03

I disagree. It should be $46 million right smack in the middle. If they can't get to that point, then screw'em all!

Yeah, it's real easy to say $46M when your team has double that.

If the NHLPA had said $200M would you be saying $110M would be right? WTF?

This deal royally screws the small market teams.

Okay, this is where I draw the line. What is a small market team? Is it just the eight handpicked teams' owners Bettman chose or is it others who don't have a say when Bettman asks for a minority to approve the cancelation of the season?

Because if you really want to get technical, there aren't as many small markets as you claim.

You have small markets, medium ones and big ones. They have to install a system that would not just benefit one but make it doable for all.

Esb... that letter was posted earlier in the thread by Petey.

I still don't see there being a season. They'll botch it and we'll be left with nothing.

Edited by Derek21, 15 February 2005 - 08:05 PM.

0

"The greatest trick Devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist."

Hasan, Brian and I blog at New York Puck. Devils, Islanders, Rangers and Sabres.

46 million would be fine, both sides declare victory and we play on. that's the figure JD mentioned in his interview and seemed pretty optimistic it would get things done.

the rosters are 20 derek, that's just 4 lines, 6 D, 2 goalies. What would be wrong with carrying 2 extra forwards or 1 extra forward and 1 extra D?

really I don't think most of the owners would have a problem with a 50 million cap, but it was the gang of 8 who killed so much of the season insisting it would be some ludicrous figure like 32 million.

0

^7^ is just defending his sport sheeps.. as Alcibiades the exiled Athenian rationalizes in his speech to the enemy Spartans, he wants to take revenge on Athens because he loves it and can't stand to see the state it's in now - Triumph

(A) EIGHTEEN TEAMS were under the proposed new cap. EIGHTEEN. That's a 1 and an 8. 18. EIGHTEEN. I'll write that in big letters. EIGHTEEN

(B)And most of those teams still lost money. And they will lose even more next year when revenues are lower.

But if you are happy with teams still losing big wads of cash after this lockout, that's fine. I'd expect nothing less.

A $42M cap is a white flag by the league. Those that want contraction will get it under this "cap".

how many of those 18 lost alot of money, because surely they know most NHL franchises are not going to turn a profit every year, if you're not ready to lose money some years, then get out of the league!

how many could've spent more but decided to shed payroll in anticipation?

sure we'll get contraction, but not 18 teams. 6 maximum. the rest will recognize the realities of hockey, some years they'll make a little, others they'll lose a little.

0

^7^ is just defending his sport sheeps.. as Alcibiades the exiled Athenian rationalizes in his speech to the enemy Spartans, he wants to take revenge on Athens because he loves it and can't stand to see the state it's in now - Triumph

Eighteen teams were below the cap but what this does is it throws the brakes on any salary growth. I hardly think it's a white flag - you've been believing the Bettman party line far too much if you think it's a surrender. With inflation, assuming this cap does not ascend in any significant way in the next ten years, the NHL will be fine. It's not like every team is going to throw themselves up to the threshold of the cap, or has to. The point is to destroy NHL player salary growth and provide some measure of cost certainty, which this does. If teams that can afford players are up to the cap, and teams that can't aren't, where do the free agents go? Where's the market for them? There is none.

12 teams including the Devs would be over the "cap". I think its an offer the players need to seriously consider. They need to be realistic here. Another eight months and the fan base in many cities will be significantly impacted. It took baseball several yrs to recover(and a juiced ball not to mentioned juiced players). Can the NHL ever recover?